The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its earlier direction barring three academicians linked to a controversial NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter on the judiciary from academic engagements with governments, universities and educational institutions, while also withdrawing its observation that they had “deliberately or knowingly misrepresented facts.”

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, modified its March 11 order against Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar, who were involved in drafting the chapter in the NCERT textbook 'Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Class 8, Vol. 2)'.

“While we reiterate, in no uncertain terms, that the curriculum contained in the Class 8 NCERT textbook was wholly undesirable and unnecessary... in view of the explanation furnished by the applicants... we deem it appropriate to modify paragraph 8 of the order and recall the direction issued to the Government of India, the State Governments, Union Territories, universities, and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the applicants in academic activities,” the top court said as quoted by the Bar and Bench.

The bench added that governments and institutions are free to take an independent decision on associating with the three academics.

“It is further clarified that the opening line of paragraph 8 of the order, to the effect that the three applicants had deliberately or knowingly misrepresented facts, is also recalled in light of the explanation tendered by them,” the Supreme Court said in its order today, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

The controversy began in February after reports highlighted portions of the NCERT chapter dealing with “corruption in the judiciary.” Taking suo motu cognisance, the apex court had said the contents undermined the dignity of the judiciary and later imposed a blanket ban on the textbook’s production and distribution.

NCERT subsequently withdrew the book, apologised for the chapter and termed it an inadvertent error of judgment. The top court had then ordered that the three experts should not be associated with curriculum preparation or textbook finalisation in India and constituted an expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra to review the issue.

During Friday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the Union government would not engage the three experts in future academic work.

“We will not like to be associated with any such members who drafted that class 8 chapter,” he said, while also flagging objections to cartoons in a Class 11 textbook.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Professor Michel Danino, argued that the March 11 order was passed ex-parte and would have “far-reaching consequences.” Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Alok Prasanna Kumar, maintained there was no malicious intent behind the chapter.

Justice Bagchi, however, said the issue was the lack of balance in the presentation.

“We wanted to see whether it was balanced or not, and we felt that it was not balanced. The role of the judiciary and the aspect of constitutional supremacy were missing, whereas corruption was highlighted,” Justice Bagchi observed.